Dyadic measurement invariance and its importance for replicability in romantic relationship science
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Comparisons of group means, variances, correlations, and/or regression slopes involving psychological variables rely on an assumption of measurement invariance—that the latent variables under investigation have equivalent meaning and measurement across group. When measures are noninvariant, replicability suffers, as comparisons are either conceptually meaningless, or hindered by inflated Type I error rates. We propose that the failure to account for interdependence among dyad members when testing measurement invariance may be a potential source of unreplicable findings in relationship research. We developed fully dyadic versions of invariance models, created an R package ( dySEM ) to make specifying dyadic invariance models easier and reporting more reproducible, and executed a Registered Report for gauging the extent of dyadic (non)invariance in romantic relationship research across measures of relationship well‐being, personality, and sexuality in a sample of 282 heterosexual couples. We found that although a number of popular measures display good evidence of dyadic invariance, a few display concerning levels and interesting patterns of noninvariance, while others appeared either noninvariant or poorly fitting for both men and women. We discuss our findings in terms of their meaning for the replicability dyadic close relationship research. We close by arguing that increased theorizing and research on dyadic invariance, and inclusive methods for analyzing invariance with indistinguishable dyads, are needed to capitalize on the opportunity to advance our field's understanding of dyadic constructions of relational concepts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it